Is the play illegal

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

The answer to your question is, "probably not".

I suggest that you invest in the Case Book. Fed has made it clear what is acceptable and what is not with regards to this play. I don't understand why they do certain things, but it is specifically supported in the Case Book.

This play has been in that book for a number of years. As I intimated earlier, I recalled seeing it some time ago and had to dig through the book to locate it. It hasn't been changed and Fed loves to rectify problem interpretations. This is accepted and legal in High School baseball.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by DG

Please cite rule, case book, or whatever other source you have.

To be clear, I'm saying the second play in this thread (banging the bats together) is illegal. The first play (the Miami play -- the fake overthrow) is legal.

I don't have my books handy to provide a reference.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by DG

Please cite rule, case book, or whatever other source you have.

FED Rule 2-22-2

I am at work but I believe the FED case play reference is under section 2.22.1

The FED case play is a bit different but the concept is the same. The Case play talks about F2 throwing a pop-up to F6/F4 (doesn't matter) where F6 yells "get back get back" to the runner so that the runner thinks it's a pop-up and retreats.

In FED that is treated as verbal OBS. Pretty similar to the play in question.

In OBR, hopefully the player that banged the bats together is not in the line-up otherwise his ears might "get banged" if you know what I mean.

Pete Booth

[JJ]

Originally posted by DG

Under your definition, any spin move to 2b that results in the runner sliding back to 2b is illegal, since he was "goaded" to return by a fake tag and a fake throw.

So, if the pitcher steps off the rubber with a runner on 1b and fakes a throw to 1b, thereby "goading" the runner to slide back (or dive) is therefore also obstruction. I hope you will agree that this is rediculous, as is faking a throw to 2b to "goad" the runner to go back to 2b.

[/B]

You've misinterpreted my post. I did not say, nor did I imply, that ANY spin move "goading" the runner into sliding back into a base is ILLEGAL. What I DID say was that if the fielder fakes receiving a throw which results in the runner sliding when there was no throw, you should penalize the fake tag. I hope this "goads" a long way into clarifying what I was trying (albeit somewhat unsuccessfully, evidently) to say.

JJ
PS Why are we putting "goad" in quotes?

[BretMan]

"If the runner is goaded into sliding back into second when the fielder fakes taking a throw, by FED rules you will have Obstruction (Fake Tag)."

To get an obstruction call for a "fake tag", you actually need to have something happen that resembles a, well... "tag". Like a sweep at the runner with the glove, when the fielder is not in possession of the ball.

Simulating taking a throw from another fielder is not a "fake tag".

[Edited by BretMan on Oct 25th, 2005 at 03:29 PM]

[DG]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

To be clear, I'm saying the second play in this thread (banging the bats together) is illegal. The first play (the Miami play -- the fake overthrow) is legal.

I don't have my books handy to provide a reference.

Thanks for clarification, I should have read more carefully. I thought you were referring to the Miami play from the first post.

[DG]

Originally posted by JJ

You've misinterpreted my post. I did not say, nor did I imply, that ANY spin move "goading" the runner into sliding back into a base is ILLEGAL. What I DID say was that if the fielder fakes receiving a throw which results in the runner sliding when there was no throw, you should penalize the fake tag. I hope this "goads" a long way into clarifying what I was trying (albeit somewhat unsuccessfully, evidently) to say.

JJ
PS Why are we putting "goad" in quotes? [/B]

The Miami play does not fake receiving a throw to get the runner to slide, it fakes the runner into thinking a throw is wild, into CF, thus "goading" the runner to advance. I think there is a lot of difference between holding your glove up as if you are going to receive a throw, and a fake tag. I think FED wants to warn/penalize a fake tag becaue they don't want unnecessary sliding, which might get someone hurt.

Where I grew up, goading was poking an animal with a stick to make him move. I thought it was funny to goad (fake) a runner into moving to 3B.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

The question was answered and most of us seem to understand the what, why and how involved with this particular play.

Let's take it a step further:

R2 and no outs. The shortstop sets up a step or two behind the runner leading off the base. He slaps his mitt every time the pitcher glances back at the runner. He says "Back" at the same time he slaps the mitt. How many of you would call this Obstruction according to Fed guidelines? NCAA? OBR?

[DG]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
R2 and no outs. The shortstop sets up a step or two behind the runner leading off the base. He slaps his mitt every time the pitcher glances back at the runner. He says "Back" at the same time he slaps the mitt. How many of you would call this Obstruction according to Fed guidelines? NCAA? OBR?

My first thought was that I would tell the SS to stop saying "back" as he slaps his glove. But given the propensity for debate on this site I decided to do some research. I checked 2005 BRD (item 340) and J/R (page 207 of 2004 edition) and based on the examples given for verbal obstruction I would say that saying "back" to a runner in this situation is a very grey area. I also checked to see if anything in the FED case book on this and did not find, although I did find some case plays that were similar to ones mentioned in BRD and J/R as examples. So, after this quick look at references I will stick with my original thought, and tell the SS to stop saying "back" when he slaps his glove.

It's nothing in NCAA and OBR, see item 340 in BRD. Clearly, to be mentioned in the BRD means there is a difference in interpretation between FED, NCAA, OBR.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

From DG -

My first thought was that I would tell the SS to stop saying "back" as he slaps his glove. But given the propensity for debate on this site I decided to do some research. I checked 2005 BRD (item 340) and J/R (page 207 of 2004 edition) and based on the examples given for verbal obstruction I would say that saying "back" to a runner in this situation is a very grey area. I also checked to see if anything in the FED case book on this and did not find, although I did find some case plays that were similar to ones mentioned in BRD and J/R as examples. So, after this quick look at references I will stick with my original thought, and tell the SS to stop saying "back" when he slaps his glove.

It's nothing in NCAA and OBR, see item 340 in BRD. Clearly, to be mentioned in the BRD means there is a difference in interpretation between FED, NCAA, OBR.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, I'll play Devil's Advocate here: The coach says, "Why does he have to stop doing that? Show me the rule."

[DG]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Okay, I'll play Devil's Advocate here: The coach says, "Why does he have to stop doing that? Show me the rule."

Coach, FED has a rule against verbal obstruction and there are a number of examples in the case book. Saying "back" in this situation could be interpreted as verbal obstruction by some umpires. Sooner or later you will run into an umpire who thinks it should be called vs. one who thinks it could be called, but my preference is just to put an end to it wo we don't have this grey area.

[BigUmp56]

This question came up earlier this summer. The guys in our association seemed to be divided as to what they felt constituted the necessity for a verbal obstruction call to become warranted.

I wrote to Kyle McNeely who has served on the NFHS baseball rules committee in past years. The following is his response.

Tim.
__________________________________________________ __________
__________________________________________________ __________
__________________________________________________ __________


Tim, thanks for the question. Hope your spring and summer seasons have gone well. Pretty much wound down here.

I am not surprised that there exists a high level of debate on this. Obstruction as a topic, for some reason, tends to be on a national basis, misunderstood and misapplied.

As you are well aware, Rule 2-22-2 tells us that obstruction can verbal and physical, intentional and unintentional. An additional key phrase in that definition deals with obstruction being an act that hinders a runner or changes the pattern of play. This means that the obstruction did something; caused something else to happen.

So, in reality we do not handle verbal obstruction any differently than we would a physical act. If it hindered a runner or changed the "pattern of play" we would enforce the penalty. What is and is not obstruction then lies with the umpire. That is the basis of your discussion.

We know that many times, on the batter-runner rounding first following a base hit single to the outfield, he may run into the first baseman who is standing on the base or near it in the basepath. Most of the time, that is not obstruction as the batter-runner was not going to second anyway, he was just rounding first and going to return there. But, let's say the ball gets through the outfielder or the outfielder kicks it around, then the same act now might be obstruction as it did hinder the runner or changed the play. Before it did nothing, now it had an impact. Same act, but one is obstruction and one is not.

So, applying this train of thought to the verbal act in question, we have 2 approved rulings which provide some guidance.

The first one is from 1993:

PLAY: With R1 on second, F5 yells, "Back! Back!" R1 thinks the instructions have come from his third base coach. R1 (a) does not return or (b) is thrown out at home on B2'����� after first starting back to second. R1's coach claims F5 should be called for obstruction because he hindered R1. F5's coach contends that this is just part of baseball. RULING: Anytime a fielder hinders a runner, obstruction should be called. In (a), because R1 was not hindered, there is no obstruction. In (b), had R1 not attempted to return, he may not have been put out at the plate. Therefore, F5 is guilty of obstruction.

The second approved ruling is from 1997:

PLAY: With R1 on second base, F6 yells "back, back, back!" as F1 starts his pitch. R1 returns to second base, thinking he was following the commands of his base coach. B2 (a) does not hit the ball, or (b) hits the ball.
RULING: In (a) and (b), verbal obstruction shall be called. The umpire shall award R1 the base he would have reached (a minimum of one base), had there not been obstruction.

In a way, both are saying the same thing, and the same thing on any obstruction. If the act hindered or changed the play, obstruction should be called. The 1993 ruling is obvious, but to some the 1997 ruling might be debatable.

What is being said here, is in both cases, the runner went back to second when he ordinarily would not have, hence the pattern of play was changed (as well as some safety factor bearing on it as well). Had the runner not gone back, the mere fact the defensive player said "back, back" would not have been obstruction. When it influenced the runner it became obstruction. In truth, in the past, even when a runner went back to second (nothing else happened) I have simply told the defensive player to stop as next time I will rule obstruction. If they do it again, I rule it. Certainly, if something happened I would rule obstruction.

This is a kinda of long winded response, and I hope it helps. Let me know if I didn't clear the debate up.

Kyle

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

This question was also addressed by Anthony Holman and Bob Laufenberger, NFHS Baseball Rule Committee members. Kyle does not speak for the NFHS and is using unsubstantiated interps. Contrary to his and your contention, it is not illegal. It is accepted along with the hidden ball trick, the outfield lead off and the "overthrown pickoff". When properly executed, they are things of beauty.

If Fed says that the responsibility is on the coaches to insure that the players aren't fooled, then that is good enough for me. That is why I said I hated the aformentioned "overthrown pickoff". Some guys don't understand that masterful coaching goes into that play. Absent minded playing and coaching cause it to succeed. It is very skilled execution of a legal strategy.

There are too many arguments against making the obstruction call:

1) Your back is to the play and you need to see the defensive player say it and the offensive player respond. Most of the time the runner ignores him or tells him to F-off.

2) The defensive player could argue that he is telling his pitcher he is getting "back" into defensive position and not holding the guy on any longer. Yes, it is hogwash but are you clairvoyant?

3) We already have a play that says the players can yell in a deceptive way and it is not construed as obstruction. It is also at 2B and involves a runner not listening to his coaches.

4) Just because an infielder says "Bunt" doesn't mean the batter has to do it. Does the runner on 2B have to take a step back?

5) It's just another example of being an overly officious official. The rule and casebooks do not mention this type of behavior. Yelling "Foul", "Slide", or "Hold Up" are very different pronouncements. This is the type of behavior that rule is designed to forbid.

I've seen this issue debated here and on other sites. There are those that believe the players should behave like altar boys out there - no backtalking, cussing or trash talk. At some levels and in some neighborhoods, this nay be appropriate. For the majority of baseball, we let the kids play and ensure that we enforce the rules consistently. Grey areas get us into trouble, like the "Don't do that." comment in J/R. If I'm the coach who hears an umpire say that some umpires might construe that behavior as inappropriate, he's likely to say "Do you?". Of course you'll say you wouldn't have brough it up if you didn't. Then he's likely to ask for the other umpires next game. Those would be the ones that call the rules in the book and aren't concerned with fabricating other ones. A2D, if you want. Call what you see; rule 1 of umpiring school.

[Tim C]

Just from my perspective:

First, you need to recognize that Kyle McNeely is Eliott Hopkins "right hand man" when it comes to Federation Baseball rulings. Being an official member of the committee is really rather unimportant, Kyle does speak for FED whether I like it or not.

Second, I am not sure why you call the interps "unsubstantiated." They are clearly printed on the Spring Newsletter's list (available from NFHS if requested).

Third, the "alteration" of play reference are not new they have been around for many years.

Fourth, don't tell me I don't under "masterful" coaching. I understand the game pretty well.

Fifth, my umpire association agrees on how this is called so we don't have the silly wars of "the guys last week didn't call it!" BooHoo.

Sixth, officials in EVERY sport use preventive officiating all the time. "Don't do that" is just a portion of game control that is learned over time. I strongly reccomend using it.

Windy, I will give you one thing:

Sometimes: UMPIRES HAVE TO UMPIRE -- we get paid to do and we need to understand ALL ramifications when we take the field.

So, in my neck of the woods, we tell infielders not to say "BACK!" if continue and it IMPACTS play we call it!

Pretty simple.

Tee

[David B]

Originally posted by Tim C
Just from my perspective:

First, you need to recognize that Kyle McNeely is Eliott Hopkins "right hand man" when it comes to Federation Baseball rulings. Being an official member of the committee is really rather unimportant, Kyle does speak for FED whether I like it or not.

Second, I am not sure why you call the interps "unsubstantiated." They are clearly printed on the Spring Newsletter's list (available from NFHS if requested).

Third, the "alteration" of play reference are not new they have been around for many years.

Fourth, don't tell me I don't under "masterful" coaching. I understand the game pretty well.

Fifth, my umpire association agrees on how this is called so we don't have the silly wars of "the guys last week didn't call it!" BooHoo.

Sixth, officials in EVERY sport use preventive officiating all the time. "Don't do that" is just a portion of game control that is learned over time. I strongly reccomend using it.

Windy, I will give you one thing:

Sometimes: UMPIRES HAVE TO UMPIRE -- we get paid to do and we need to understand ALL ramifications when we take the field.

So, in my neck of the woods, we tell infielders not to say "BACK!" if continue and it IMPACTS play we call it!

Pretty simple.

Tee

Very well stated Tee, that's exactly how we handle it in our area.

Bottom line, if it doesn't affect the play, ignore it.

Thanks
David